What's the best measure
by HTownND (2019-02-07 13:18:15)

In reply to: You post the same thing every year.  posted by NDCuse


Instead of dicking around back and forth, let's just pick a measure and go with it.

Average stars?

Composite ranking?

Top 300 count?


All of those can and will say different things. I don't think any of them, individually, is conclusive.

As for Cross' point, given the holes on offense (and the composite ranking, and number of 5 stars) of this class, it's not a completely baseless claim.


No single measure is indicative, but
by NDCuse  (2019-02-07 15:02:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the goal should be having 4* or better starting at every position with the occasional exception like Julian Love. Ideally, we have a 5* at every level of the defense. Everyone who's followed recruiting knows that what's consistently missing are elite WR, RB and defensive recruits. However, there are sixteen 4* players which means 16 guys with that should be able to contribute and have substantial pro potential. It's an mediocre class. Not great. Not disastrous.


OK
by HTownND  (2019-02-08 12:28:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

" It's an mediocre class. Not great. Not disastrous."


Is that contrary to saying it's our lowest ranked class since 2012?

That doesn't mean it's a disaster, it's just the lowest ranked, using one of the metrics.


USA Today first and second teams
by domer4  (2019-02-07 13:26:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

No kidding... during the late 80s/early 90s - we would get 4 or so on the first team (offense and defense combined) and another 4-5 on the second team.

That would be around 8 or so.

No other college would get more than 2-3.